tv LIVE Full Board of Supervisors SFGTV December 1, 2015 2:00pm-5:31pm PST
grants - trust for public land - joseph l. alioto performing arts piazza ("civic center plaza") playgrounds - $10,000,000] sponsor: mayor resolution retroactively authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend grants of up to $10,000,000 from the trust for public land for design and reconstruction of the playgrounds at the joseph l. alioto performing arts piazza ("civic center plaza"), and approving grant agreements with the trust for public land for acceptance and performance of the grant services for the project term of november 5, 2014, through january 31, 2017. [master license agreements - extenet systems (california), llc, gte mobilnet of california, lp, dba verizon wireless, and mobilitie investments iii, llc - wireless telecommunications equipment on transit support poles - each to exceed $1,000,000] resolution retroactively approving executed master license agreements between the city and county of san francisco, extenet systems (california), llc, gte mobilnet of california, lp, dba verizon wireless, and mobilitie investments iii, llc, for the installation of wireless telecommunications antennae and equipment on san francisco municipal transportation agency poles, each for an amount to exceed $1,000,000 and a term of nine years beginning september 22, 2014, november 30, 2014, and april 23, 2015, respectively; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. [multifamily housing revenue bonds - 510 folsom street (also known as transbay block 9) - not to exceed $95,000,000] sponsor: kim resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco ("city") to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development ("director") to submit an application
and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee ("cdlac") to permit the issuance of tax exempt residential rental housing bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $95,000,000 to finance costs of the construction of 311 rental housing units to be located on the first 21 floors of a 42-story mixed use building to be constructed at 510 folsom street sdp [multifamily housing revenue bonds - 1855-15th street - not to exceed $48,715,000] sponsors: mayor; wiener resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco (the "city") to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development (the "director") to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee (sf 25 >> >> please stand by... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> city of san francisco >> >> >> london >>supervisor london breed: good afternoon. madam clerk, please call the roll. >>clerk, please call the roll. supervisors avalos, present, breed, present, campos present, christensen, present, supervisor cohen, present, supervisor farrell, present, supervisor kim, not present. supervisor mar, present, supervisor tang, present, supervisor wiener, present, supervisor yee. present. madam president, you have a quorum. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. can you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> >> >> >> >> >> supervisor london breed: can we prove the meeting minutes. can we take those without
objection. those items pass. clerk. please call the first item. city clerk: continuing from the board meeting. first item is the mayor ed lee and may address the board for 5 minutes. supervisor london breed: welcome mayor ed lee. >>mayor edwin m. lee: thank you. let me apologize for the delay. i got the flu. this is a make-up time and i'm appreciative of it. last time we met in these chambers, the voters of san francisco passed the largest affordable housing bond in our city's history. i'm so gratified to have worked with the board and all of you on this because in many ways it was historic. i want to indicate my sincere appreciation for working
together on this. there is housing crisis and we are all serious about getting this done. i want to work with you on a number of items but mainly this affordable housing bond that is a $1.5 billion investment that makes our city more affordable and building and rehabbing lower and middle income housing for our families is truly important on everybody 's agenda. it will also help us deliver on a commitment that i made to deliver at least 30,000 new homes by 2020 with over half of that available to middle and low income families and certainly will help us with the commitment and important work of fixing our public housing for our lower and middle income
san francisco residents. when we talk about working faster, we need to talk about our private sector to help us build a more affordable housing especially on this economy and large project. today i have announced that we'll bring to the voters sometime next year a charter amendment that will require housing developers to build more affordable housing in new developments. we convene what i think you will agree with me it was a very -- housing working group with the trust fund passed with proposition c. i will direct this working group that includes not only that original group but members of our housing development community and as well as developers who passed this recent housing bond
and direct a plan that increases our affordable housing requirements and new developments especially in large developments. we will simultaneously need to consider how to speed up construction. i know the cost of constructing housing is very expensive in the city, but we need to work alongside this challenge as well to provide housing investors with even more certainty. our housing working group will consider process improvements as well as shorten the timeframe needed for affordable housing projects in our city. when it comes to affordable housing policy and certainly homeless policies for that matter, i know that when we work together and we will make great progress. so this thursday, i intend to layout an ambitious plan for our city, a vision for addressing homelessness
working with this board and with our non-profits, with our housing providers and in the private sector. i look forward to working with all of you on this challenge. let me take this opportunity to give a special thanks to one of your colleagues and one that i had the privilege of appointing to the board. supervisor christensen, i want to thank you for someone working in the community for those years advocating for parks and neighborhood centers and transportation and taking up the privilege of being a supervisor for district 3. i personally want to thank you for the attention to your colleagues and for being a member of the board and representing district 3. thank you for that sacrifice. i know you want to continue in the public sector so i will take the
opportunity now for the sacrifice that you did and look forward to working with you in the future. thank you, supervisor christensen. also today is world aids day and we are providing hope for those living with hiv and aids and i look forward to the generation that will be aids free. not only will this city be drenched in the red lining, our symbol to end hiv and aids. we are going to redouble that effort to get to zero infections and we'll do so with some tremendous boost as you have heard with the the last 48 hours. a $20 million grant to uc san francisco that i know we are smiling ought -- at because investing in san
francisco approach and ucfs institute to cure aids and we are providing housing and treatment for people with aids and be will never abandon that and we remain committed to finding a hope and 1 day hope to bring an end to this epidemic. finally, i want to acknowledge another mayor in the chambers with us today. i would like to recognize milla, the news dog mayor of the day and mayor lukea who have won out hearts. they have considered important dog friendly legislation. they ran campaigns of their dignified
species with platforms for few nail trims, longer naps, more outdoor romps and belly rubs. the non-profit animal care and control selected these two qualified dogs as potential two mayors for a day to the anniversary gala in 2014. teresa king won the item. she's there with our friendly dogs. funds raised for the auction of our animal care and control. i want to thank them for their support. thanks for being here. now it's time for my belly rub and work for the city. supervisor london breed: thank you, mr. mayor for being here today. madam clerk, will you please read the consent agenda. >> city clerk: items 1-9 comprise
the items on consent agenda and maybe approved together. supervisor london breed: >>clerk, please call the roll.. city clerk: breed, aye, christensen, aye, cohen, aye, supervisor farrell, aye, supervisor kim, aye, supervisor mar, aye, supervisor tang, aye, supervisor wiener, aye, supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos on the consent agenda? avalos aye. there are 11 ayes. >>supervisor london breed: these items are approved and adopted on the first
reading unanimously. madam clerk please call items 11, 12 together. [general plan - fifth and mission special use district] ordinance amending the general plan of the city and county of san francisco by amending map 1 of the downtown plan to reclassify lot nos. 005, 006, 008, 009, 012, and 098 in assessor's block no. 3725 as c-3-s (downtown support); amending map 5 of the downtown plan to reclassify the height and bulk limits in accordance with the fifth and mission special use district and sectional map ht001; amending figures 2, 3, and 4 of the downtown plan to refer to the fifth and mission special use district, planning code, section 249.74; amending maps 4 and 5 of the urban design element to refer to the fifth and mission special use district; amending maps 2, 3, 5, and 7 of the south of market area plan to remove lot nos. 005, 006, 008, 009, 012, and 098 in assessor's block no. 3725 from the boundaries of the south of market area plan; and adopting findings, including environmental findings, section 340 findings,
and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning sf 101234 [planning code, zoning map - fifth and mission special use district] sponsor: mayor ordinance amending the planning code to add section 249.74 to create the fifth and mission special use district; amending zoning sectional maps zn001, su001, and ht001 to reflect the fifth and mission special use district; and making environmental findings, including a statement of overriding considerations, findings of consistency with the general plan, the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1, and findings pursuant to planning code, section 302sf 101234 sf 111234 [development agreement - 5m project, llc - fifth and mission project] sponsor: mayor ordinance approving a development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and 5m project, llc, a delaware limited liability company, for the fifth and mission project at the approximately 4-acre site located at fifth street between mission and howard streets, with various public benefits including a minimum percentage of affordable housing; making findings under the california environmental quality act, findings of conformity with the general plan, and with the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1(b); approving the use of impact fees and exactions for affordable housing and other community benefits, as set forth in the development agreement, and waiving any conflicting provision in planning code, article 4, or administrative code, article 10; authorizing the acquisition of real property at 967 mission street for affordable housing; and confirming compliance with or waiving certain provisions of administrative code, chapters 14b and 56, and ratifying certain actions taken sf 101234 sf 111234 sf 121234 supervisor london breed: roll call vote. >> breed, aye, campos, no, farrell aye, supervisor kim, aye, supervisor mar, no, supervisor tang, aye, supervisor wiener, aye, supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos, no. there are 8 ayes and 3 no. with campos, mar and avalos in the dissent. supervisor london breed: those
ordinances are finally passed. madam clerk, please read item 13. [administrative, planning codes - preferences in affordable housing programs] sponsors: mayor; christensen, cohen, breed and wiener ordinance amending the administrative code to clarify existing preferences in allocating city affordable housing units first to certificate of preference holders and second to tenants evicted under the ellis act, expand the second category of preference for eligible tenants displaced under the ellis act to include certain tenants displaced through an owner move-in or omi eviction, and create a third preference for residents in the neighborhood where the affordable housing is located; to make conforming amendments to provisions of the administrative and planning codes; to affirm the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and to make findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.112341234 supervisor london breed: >>clerk, please call the roll. >>clerk, please tang no, wiener, aye, yee, aye, supervisor avalos, aye. there are 9 ayes and two nos
with supervisors mar and tang in the dissent. supervisor london breed: these items are finally pass. mrul madam clerk please call items 13, 14, 15 together. [administrative, planning codes - preferences in affordable housing programs] sponsors: mayor; christensen, cohen, breed and wiener ordinance amending the administrative code to clarify existing preferences in allocating city affordable housing units first to certificate of preference holders and second to tenants evicted under the ellis act, expand the second category of preference for eligible tenants displaced under the ellis act to include certain tenants displaced through an owner move-in or omi eviction, and create a third preference for residents in the neighborhood where the affordable housing is located; to make conforming amendments to provisions of the administrative and planning codes; to affirm the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and to make findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1 1234 [airport hotel management agreement, cash management and lockbox agreement - hyatt corporation - on-airport hotel at san francisco international airport - not to exceed $19,945,420] resolution approving the award of a hotel management agreement and a cash management and lockbox agreement to hyatt corporation for a term of ten years to commence following opening of the hotel, with compensation not to exceed $19,945,420 relating to an on-airport hotel at the san francisco international
airport; approving the forms of the agreements and authorizing the execution and delivery thereof; approving certain related matters, as defined herein; and adopting environmental findings. (airport commission sf[airport hotel management agreement, cash management and lockbox agreement - hyatt corporation - on-airport hotel at san francisco international airport - not to exceed $19,945,420] resolution approving the award of a hotel management agreement and a cash management and lockbox agreement to hyatt corporation for a term of ten years to commence following opening of the hotel, with compensation not to exceed $19,945,420 relating to an on-airport hotel at the san francisco international airport; approving the forms of the agreements and authorizing the execution and delivery thereof; approving certain related matters, as defined herein; and adopting environmental findings. (airport commission1234 [airport commission capital plan bonds - up to $243,000,000 - airport commission special facility bonds - $225,000,000 - airport hotel financing] resolution approving the issuance of up to $243,000,000 aggregate principal amount of san francisco airport commission capital plan bonds and $225,000,000 aggregate principal amount of san francisco airport commission special facility bonds to finance a hotel at san francisco international airport; authorizing the execution and delivery of certain agreements related to such bonds; and approving certain related matters. (airport commission1234 >> >> [appropriation - airport commission - airport hotel project - fy2015-2016 - $473,450,000] sponsor: mayor ordinance appropriating $473,450,000 consisting of $243,000,000 of proceeds from the sale of airport capital plan bonds and $450,000 from fund balance, and $230,000,000 of proceeds from hotel special facility revenue bonds and other long-term financing sources to develop a hotel within the san francisco international airport, and placing $473,450,000 on controller's reserve pending receipt of proceeds of indebtedness and other financing source1234 supervisor london breed: colleagues can
i have a motion to recuse supervisor farrell. can we take this without objection? motion passes. supervisor mar? >> as you might know there was a discussion on this item at the budget committee. i raised some questions about the process but i wanted to thank john martin our airport director for answering our questions and wanted to thank hyatt and mr. martin for the process and i want to thank mr. martin who selected the management that will fill need for the airport. i'm supportive of this now. supervisor london breed: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor yee? >>supervisor norman yee: thank you, madam president. i just have a couple of questions since i was not on the land use committee.
other ones and will support the business going towards the other hotels, in this case not the one in the airport. so that's sort of the gist of this report. can you, do you have any comments around that? >> at the bottom line, the report is meaningless because it ignores the fact that we negotiated a 35% room rate differential between the burling game property and the other property. if we don't receive 35% more on average per night, hyatt loses that contract. the key fact of the analysis, the analysis was prepared in november and public information for some period that we negotiated that 35% differential. dallas has the hyatt regency and grand hyatt on airport property and they have
been successful. the economic down turn. the room rate differential at the hyatt increased in comparison to other hotels in the area. we know our hotel rate will be higher. we also know with the economic down turn, that it will increase. that's our experience with dallas. >> thank you for your answer. that clarifies some of my questions. >> thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you very much. i want to thank our airport director for being willing to have a conversation on this item. i want a follow up for the question that supervisor yee raised and i believe that in fact i know that issue
was also raised in committee. but specifically going back to the question of whether or not the other hyatt hotel in the vicinity to the airport is is a four star or four diamond. the reason why that's relevant is that people who may not beware of the specific know is the extent that the city's take from the proceeds is dependent on the success of the airport hotel if you have another similar property that is competing for the same clientele then there is an argument that the hotel that we are talking about would not be as successful which means less money for the city. that's why this is so relevant. so i appreciate what you said and i wanted to just more specifically ask.
i saw a couple of things including information on the website that seems at least at the time that this was printed seemed to be the website for the hyatt regency in burling game that it was a four diamond. i have seen some evidence that some of the personnel at the property identify the property as a four star. so, i just wanted to go back, what is your response to any concern or intimation that we might be getting ourselves into a relationship with a company that has a very similar property that would be competing with this? >> supervisor, the bottom line protection that i negotiated and i was prepared to walk away from the
deal, actually walked away from negotiations over this issue that we demanded a high differential requirement and we obtain that commitment. therefore that 35% room rate differential and while hyatt intends to keep the burling game properties at 3 diamond, even if it should later become a four diamond, that's 35% provided for the protection we need. the airports around the country do command a premium. that's why they agreed to the 35% differential. hyatt has about eight times the number and that provides a level of protection as well for us to have that big of a draw. i think i may have missed another part of your question. >> i think that addresses it.
i'm not an expert in any of these things. i have a lot of respect for the director for the work that he and the staff do. that 35% differentiation in terms of pricing is more important in terms of insuring the viability and success of the hotel. >> that's the most important to me and that was the deal that i would have walked away from if i didn't get that guarantee. the other things with the diamond and star ratings, the diamond rating is an aaa and the star rating is from 4 that used to be the mobile rating. there is a lot of confusion on part of the public and the industry versus a star and diamond rating. even as recently as
2 weeks ago, i popped up to fair market -- fairmount and seattle showing it a four diamond hotel and now identified as a four diamond property. a lot of information on the internet that we are all trying to track down and keep up to date. >>supervisor david campos: just a final question that make-up the 35% differentiation. how going forward do you monitor to make sure there is compliance with that requirement? >> we receive an annual certification from hyatt's department auditor as well as we can check the county and tax records because they have to report the gross records to san mateo county as well.
>> thank you. supervisor london breed: thank you, supervisor campos, supervisor mar and i had a question about the process. there have been comments made by individuals that suggested that this, the hyatt when they bid on this project, they were actually in fact a four diamond which was basically and i know there have been a lot of questions asked along these same lines. i want to make sure for the record it's clear that when they bid on this process, there was a process that determined and checked to ensure that they weren't actually a four diamond hotel within that proximity in order to allow them to move forward in the bidding process. is that correct? >> that is correct. they have been a three diamond hotel since 2008. >> how did you make that determination because again there are a lot
of determination and you were able to research and make that determination clearly? >> that's right. we have a hotel manager on staff and we have an expert on hotels and they researched and confirmed that. >> thank you. >> all right. supervisor christensen? >>supervisor julie christensen: we maybe going over the same grounds. we talked a lot about the diamond and star ratings, but there are a number of chains in the area approximate to the hotel and all were invited to participated in the rfp. that indicates then that comanagement of hotels on and off the airport grounds
is not an issue. the airport is not concerned about the prior advantage as the singular advantage. you mentioned the hotel is on the dfw property and whatever happens dfw wins, but in in case the level of hotels is no concern about that comanagement on and off grounds? >> with that 35% room differential, there would be no concern. otherwise i would not be recommending it. we have hotel operators and people that go to the hyatt which is their first choice. it's a real plus to have that kind of base to draw from, but even if we had selected marriott or star wood, if they scored no. 1, we would
have negotiated a same requirement of a room rate differential to support the airport and city's interest. >> that means the hotel operator would have people of a higher rate regardless of the size of the hotel or size of operations? >> they want to be successful with both hotels and they are really fairly distinct markets. people are willing to pay for the rights on their property to demand a significant premium. >> the 35% differential remains, is there any restrictions that governs the designation of the hotel. are we guaranteed in someway of getting the grand hyatt at the airport as opposed to regency off sight -- site. >> we are guaranteed to have at
least a four diamond rating will be maintained during the term of the agreement. >> the agreement precludes them from upgrading the burling game facility to the terms of this contract to a four diamond hotel? >> they do not intend to upgrade it to that, but because the rating comes from aaa and not from them, it's not under their direct control to provide that from happening. that's why that room rate differential was so key to me. >> thank you. supervisor london breed: okay, thank you, colleagues, there are some questions and concerns that i have. but now it's 2:30. before we continue to this item, we are moving to 2:30 commendations. at this time we'll start with supervisor tang? tang tang --
>>supervisor katy tang: thank you very much. if you would like to continue with the item first before the commendation? >>supervisor london breed: okay supervisor tang, we need some time on these items before we continue. >>supervisor katy tang: okay. we do have another mayor in our chambers today. i'm pleased to welcome milla king to our board. we all know there was a heat intense race. that was the mayor dog of san francisco. after a rough campaign, i'm excited to announce milla king.
our voters were very inspired by milla's story. it was a close race. today i'm also excited to announce that we have a deputy mayor luka king. they are from the same family and proud guardians teresa and norm. if you would like to please stand. i'm sure that teresa and norm are very proud of milla and luka for their accomplishments. they are really great examples for how much rescue animals add to our lives. i want to take this opportunity for treers teresa and norm and for the work from the animal control and the directors here today. they are an incredible department. they take in any animals in any
condition and they are the only organization in san francisco public or private that does so. they even take animals considered unadoptable by any organization such as terriers and rats. you can also adopt birds, rabbits and almost any domesticated animal that you can imagine. acc also serves to many in our city and helps to transparent injured wild life to rehab centers to rescuing animals from dangerous situations. this was a wonderful opportunity to thank animal control for their work. a place where our family adopted our dog. i would like to thank the
friends here who helped organize teresa and norm that are the proud members of the dog mayors of san francisco today. some of milla's friends here today, kittens event that started. our office is hosting adoptable kittens until december 11th. we will be in our office for people to stop by to get some kitten playtime to destress from work. so our office is happy to turn city hall until detective 11 into kitty hall and we are happy to have mayor milla and lukea to kickoff the festivities. i don't know if you would like to say a few words but welcome.
supervisor london breed: thank you and congratulations. i would like to recognize supervisor campos for his commendation. >>supervisor david campos: don't worry. i'm not going to make fun. they are very well behaved. it is my honor today to recognize a pretty amazing group of women. if you will remember i introduceded in this board of supervisors' past the first of it's kind equal pay ordinance in january of 2014. that law requires contractors and subcontractors to do business on large projects with the city to submit anne
equal pay report on compensation pay to employees and establishes an equal pay advisory board. this board has been meeting throughout the year to undertake a very physical task, a task that no one else in this country perhaps even the world has actually done. the task is to create a data collection system to analyze compensation rates for men and women and men of women of different races that will set off a flag in disparity. if it indicates that men and women are compensated differently for the same work they are performing. we know this happens all over the united states, it happens all over the world. it's a pervasive problem that affects all of us especially women. despite the equal pay act of 1963, census data
from 2011 shows the average woman still earns $0.77 for every dollar earned by men. the pay gap is even greater for african american women and latino women. with african american earning $0.64 and latina women $0.56. i am proud we are seeking to do something about this in san francisco and enormously proud and appreciative of the seven members of the equal pay advisory board for creating something that can truly change not just san francisco, but it can change this country, it can change the world. with that in mind, i would like to call upon the members of the board to please come up. they are tum a; margie english.
i also would like to call on elaine huron to come forward. the person from human rights commission who has worked tirelessly to implement this. please come up to the podium. this amazing group of women will be releasing it's final report in the next couple of weeks and men. stay tuned for more on that when we get roll call. i would like to recognize every member of the board for the work they are doing. i would like to thank teresa sparks for making this priority and to staff who has been working with this group and now i especially want to acknowledge rachel for her work
and to ensure all meetings were productive. i know rachel is is going to say a few words. on behalf, not only of the board and the district that i represent, but quite frankly on future generations of san francisco, especially all the girls and young women who will be impacted by this work. thank you very much. >> thank you so much, supervisor campos. again, my name is rachel lang ston chair of equal pay advisory board. i would like to thank you for continuing to support our efforts. since our first meeting in april we've had meetings from variety of experts including individuals from the department of status of women,
labor enforcement, city attorney's office and city controllers to department of human resources to name a few. we have also taken similar efforts to affect pay equity. usually from the fast rate of experts. we began to developing a system to ensure san francisco will continue to set the bar to others throughout the state and the country for minimizing this. we will have a report to share with the board next month. i would like to thank supervisors for their unwavering commitment. thank you again and we look
item. 14, 15, 16. before we move forward with our vote, i actually had a few more questions more specifically. you have already been recused supervisor farrell. thank you for leaving. so i want to ask questions of director martin more specifically about the four diamond rating because i have received information that specifies that and this is directly from the hyatt at the airport that the hotel is in fact a four diamond hotel. can you explain to me, you know, exactly, or someone from the hyatt can probably explain, but it seems there is information out there that makes it clear from the public that this is a four diamond hotel, but there is something that your office did to verify that it is in fact a three
diamond hotel. can you just be clear about that explanation because that's what i'm most concerned about. >> sure. it's a very important criteria that be met. the aaa publishes the diamond rating on an annual bases. >> do you know when annually? >> i don't, but since 2008, -- since 2007, actually. the burling game property has been a 3 diamond hotel. if you go to the hyatt website, there is no question that the burling game property, if you are going to make a reservation at the hyatt burling game, it is a three diamond. it has been that for 8 years. we have verified that. there is still maybe legacy information out there. if i request five diamond hotel seattle, there is a link to
another site. fairmount site shows 5 stars, not five diamonds. they are accurate. it's a little confusing but if one would think as an ordinary traveller that the fairmount is a 5 diamond, but it's a 5 star hotel. it's important we follow the aaa published data which we have followed and vefrd >> are you aware that they are advertising as a four diamond hotel and are you concerned that they are advertising it this way. this is information being put out there about this specific hotel. i'm
just trying to reconcile why we would select a hotel that although we know legally they are rated at 3 star, their advertising is basically is false advertisement? >> there is legacy information on the internet that is difficult for all of us to track down. there is airline information to sfo and shows on other websites it has old pages to sfo that is not accurate. all of these organizations are having the task to track down inaccurate information from old legacy information. in the end, my 35% differential is my guarantee. it's a guarantee for the airport, the city, even if this property becomes a four diamond property at a later date, we get the financial protection we need.
>> we get the financial protection we need, but what about the public and the advertising to the public and what the hotel is supposed to provide to the public. is that protected in this agreement as well? >> they are not to have on their sites misinformation. if they are, we will hold them accountable and i recognize there is information out there that is not accurate. if you go to make the reservation, there is no question that the hotel is a three diamond property at the burling game. >> thank you for this information. i'm still a little concerned. i know this process was discussed in more detail in the budget and finance committee meeting, and i know there
have been a number of issues that have come to my attention last minute. so this is why i have continued to bring those issues up. more specifically i did have an opportunity to meet with your attorney who specifically worked on this agreement to asked a number of questions and was assured that the process was vetted. there were -- there was a lot of care taken and dealing with this particular process and based on their work, based on your work, i know that you understand that these kinds of issues can be really problematic especially when you have groups of individuals who you respect and you also trust bringing to your attention serious concerns. unfortunately, i don't have a way to determine whether or not those concerns are valid or not based on how the information is presented. so, at this time, i'm definitely willing to consider supporting
this, but i am just hopeful that in the future that these kinds of issues will be, that the department will be a little bit more proactive with members of the board and communicating with us before they get to the level of coming to our attention where we have to discuss them in more detail in this manner. but i see other names in the roster and i'm going to recognize my colleagues, supervisor cohen in >>supervisor malia cohen: thank you very much. i just have a couple questions. would you describe to me or elaborate on the prioritization of lbe on this particular process? >> we have a significant high goals for participation in the construction program. would expect we would receive based on our history 20-25% participation for --
i think it maybe higher than that. for the on going operation, i can give you that information. we've identified $6.3 million at the hotel that the hyatt has agreed to work with us on. >> i would agree that you guys do an excellent job when it comes to the construction industry and having diversity in the construction industry and i applaud you for that. but where our concern is the contract for special services in the lbe community. i know that i have been in touch with your commission and i have also articulated concerns with your commissioners. >> i will be happy to share that information with you. frankly supervisor i couldn't be more proud of our accomplishments. we have extraordinary level of wpe/lbe
and highest in the nation and we do a very good job for promoting opportunities for many of those firms to become successful nationally. >> thank you. i'm glad you clarified that with me and shared that so people know of our successes. thank you. supervisor london breed: supervisor campos? cams >>supervisor david campos: thank you. i would like to thank you for your work. if i had to make a choice in terms of this market, i don't know that i would see selecting a hotel company that has another hotel that might possibly be competing as the ideal. so i don't know that i would have done it that way.
but that's not the question for me as to how i would have done it. but the question is it a sound bases for this selection by the airport and this administration. i think it really speaks to the level of the respect that i and many of the colleagues have for the director and that i may not have gone down this path. but that you are recommending this that i am willing to support it. what i would say is that i think it is the kind of contract that we have to watch and you know, director martin is very good at what he does. but for like all of us he's not going to be around forever and we
have a responsibility especially if the time comes where the director is not there to make sure that the letter and the spirit of this contract is enforced fully. i would say enforcement is not just dependent on the requirement of the 35%, but to me, i would also expect that hyatt beyond the rates that are established for each hotel that in the marketing, they would not undermine the success of the airport hotel, and i think going back to what president breed noted to me there is an expectation that i have that they will not be marketing themselves in
a way that would compete with the airport hotel. that's including to me that designation or identification of a four star or as a four star as a four diamond. i think we retain the right to call to task if they continue to do that to the extent they have done that and beyond that, i think as a good business partnercious -- partner, it's not how they just interact with the city but also with the public and they are accurately marketing themselves to the residents of san francisco is important to me. so i certainly will be watching this going forward. again, i will be voting for this on the advice of the director, and out of deference to him, but with any contract especially something of this
nature, things could change and i think we have to be vigilant as we move forward. thank you. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, supervisor campos. madam clerk, please call the roll. city clerk: supervisor campos, aye, christensen, aye, cohen aye, kim aye, supervisor mar, aye, supervisor tang, aye, supervisor wiener, aye, supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos, aye. 10 ayes. >>supervisor london breed: those resolutions have been adopted and pass unanimously. item 17. city clerk: [administrative code - establishing the navigation partnerships fund] sponsors: mayor; farrell and christensen ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the navigation partnerships fund supervisor london breed:
>>clerk, please call the roll. city clerk: supervisor cohen, aye, farrell, aye, mar, aye, tang, aye, supervisor wiener, aye, supervisor yee, no. supervisor avalos, aye. there are 10 ayes and one no. >>supervisor london breed: the ordinance passes on the first reading. next item. city clerk: item 18. [appropriation and de-appropriation - revenue bond proceeds for parking garage and transit projects to radio replacement and pedestrian projects - $9,437,587 - fy2015-2016] sponsors: mayor; breed ordinance appropriating and de-appropriating $9,437,587 consisting of $9,000,000 from municipal transportation agency series 2014a revenue bonds proceeds for parking garage projects to support the radio replacement project and $437,587 from municipal transportation agency series 2013a revenue bonds proceeds for transit projects to pedestrian projects in fy2015-2016.
supervisor london breed: >>clerk, please call the roll. city clerk: breed, aye, campos, aye, christensen, aye, supervisor cohen, aye, farrell aye, supervisor kim, aye, mar, aye, tang, aye, supervisor wiener, aye, supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos, aye. there are 11 ayes. >>supervisor london breed: this ordinance passes unanimously on the first reading. item 19. city clerk: [contract requirements - sf access paratransit program - prevailing wage and worker retention requirements] sponsor: campos ordinance authorizing the municipal transportation agency to include, in the next contract it executes for brokerage services for the sf access paratransit program after issuing a competitive solicitation, provisions that require the contractor and subcontractors to pay prevailing wages to drivers, dispatchers and reservationists providing services for the sf access program, and to provide transitional employment and retention to the prior contractor's employees performing such services; and setting the prevailing wage rates for individuals providing services for the sf access program1234
supervisor london breed: supervisor campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you. i want to take this opportunity to thank mta and partners as well and as we move forward with these contracts that we are in fact as a requirement for any competing process that we add that workers should be paid a prevailing wage. i think that it's important for us as a city to make that a priority when we issue these kinds of rfp's and at the end of the day, if you care about workers and you care about them getting the wages they deserve to be successful and to survive in this city you have to put up the money that it takes. that's what this does. i'm very grateful for that and very proud of the work done around this. thank you. i ask for your support. >> thank you, supervisor campos.
this is great regulation. i'm supportive 100%. madam clerk, please add me as a sponsor. can we take this colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. >> item 20. city clerk: [purchase and sale of electricity and related products and services for cleanpowersf - san francisco public utilities commission] sponsors: mayor; breed ordinance conditionally authorizing the san francisco public utilities commission (sfpuc) to enter into one or more agreements requiring expenditures of $10,000,000 or more for electric power and related products and services to launch the city's community choice aggregation program, cleanpowersf, and authorizing the general manager of the sfpuc to deviate from certain otherwise applicable requirements of city law in such agreementsity clerk: sf 201234 supervisor london breed: colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. item 21. city clerk: [accept and expend
grants - trust for public land - joseph l. alioto performing arts piazza ("civic center plaza") playgrounds - $10,000,000] sponsor: mayor resolution retroactively authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend grants of up to $10,000,000 from the trust for public land for design and reconstruction of the playgrounds at the joseph l. alioto performing arts piazza ("civic center plaza"), and approving grant agreements with the trust for public land for acceptance and performance of the grant services for the project term of november 5, 2014, through january 31, 2017. ity clerk: sf 211234 supervisor london breed: colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. item 22. city clerk: [master license agreements - extenet systems (california), llc, gte mobilnet of california, lp, dba verizon wireless, and mobilitie investments iii, llc - wireless telecommunications equipment on transit support poles - each to exceed $1,000,000] resolution retroactively approving executed master license agreements between the city and county of san francisco, extenet systems (california), llc, gte mobilnet of california, lp, dba verizon wireless, and mobilitie investments iii, llc, for the installation of wireless telecommunications antennae and equipment on san francisco municipal transportation agency poles, each for an amount to exceed $1,000,000 and a term of nine years beginning september 22, 2014, november 30, 2014, and april 23, 2015, respectively; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act.
city clerk: [master license agreements - extenet systems (california), llc, gte mobilnet of california, lp, dba verizon wireless, and mobilitie investments iii, llc - wireless telecommunications equipment on transit support poles - each to exceed $1,000,000] resolution retroactively approving executed master license agreements between the city and county of san francisco, extenet systems (california), llc, gte mobilnet of california, lp, dba verizon wireless, and mobilitie investments iii, llc, for the installation of wireless telecommunications antennae and equipment on san francisco municipal transportation agency poles, each for an amount to exceed $1,000,000 and a term of nine years beginning september 22, 2014, november 30, 2014, and april 23, 2015, respectively; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. >> supervisor london breed: #123w4 colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. >> items 23 through -- >> city clerk: [multifamily housing revenue bonds - 510 folsom street (also known as transbay block 9) - not to exceed $95,000,000] sponsor: kim resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco ("city") to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development ("director") to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee ("cdlac") to permit the issuance of tax exempt residential rental housing bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $95,000,000 to finance costs of the construction of 311 rental housing units to be located on the first 21 floors of a 42-story mixed use building to be constructed at 510 folsom
street [multifamily housing revenue bonds - 1855-15th street - not to exceed $48,715,000] sponsors: mayor; wiener resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco (the "city") to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development (the "director") to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit street [multifamily housing revenue bonds - 1855-15th street - not to exceed $48,715,000] sponsors: mayor; wiener resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco (the "city") to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development (the "director") to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee (sf 251234 sf 25 item 26, multifamily housing revenue bond. item 27, item 28, item 29, (reading)... item 30, item 31, item 32, item 33, item 34, item 35, item 36, item
37, item 38, item 39, item 40. item 41, item 42. supervisor london breed: colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. city clerk: item 42. planning code, zoning maep rezoning properties on ocean avenue. ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map. adopting the proceeds. >>supervisor london breed: colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. item 43.
city clerk: general plan amendment erin conhill area plan. (reading)... supervisor london breed: colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. item 44. city clerk: item 44 planning code zoning map 525 harrison street. to redesignate a portion of the assessor's block lot no. 063 to affirm the planning department ceqa determination that the amendments are within the scope of the erin conhill area plan and with the report. >>supervisor london breed: colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. item 45. city clerk: item 45, an
ordinance to amend the administrative code tiding sugar sweetened beverages on city property. supervisor london breed: supervisor cohen? >>supervisor malia cohen: thank you. on june the board advertised legislation legislation regarding beverages on city property accompanying legislation for sugary beverages including labeling and city spending on these. a week after the passing of the law, the supreme court rule regarding the 1st amendment and speech left the city attorney to reevaluate the advice that they had given to us. the supreme court raised several legal issues that related to this
ordinance. so it's for this reason that i have asked that we repeal the law. to those folks that joined me in the fight around sugary beverages, i want to assure you that the war rages on and we may have lost this particular battle but we'll continue to be working forward. this is incredibly disappointing but it's important that we move forward in a smart and thoughtful manner. thank you, madam president. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, supervisor cohen. supervisor wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: i would like to thank supervisor cohen's leadership on this issue. we moved forward 3 pieces of legislation. this one from supervisor cohen, legislation that i authored
requiring warning labels and ads for sugary drinks and we all moved forward together as part of our continued efforts to address the explosion of type two diabetes and other health problems that are being fueled by these drinks and the science has not been disputed for a long time but less disputable showing how much damage this contributes to our community's health. it's unfortunate that the court has come forward with the speech that it has. we should prevent these harmful products from the private properties. we are moving forward with other pieces of legislation. i know it will work together in coalition to address this
important public health issue and i want to thank everyone for moving forward. >> thank you, supervisor wiener, supervisor cohen? >>supervisor malia cohen: thank you for being moore -- my partner in this. supervisor mar, you as well. just want you to know we didn't take down tobacco over night and we can't take down the big city industry as well overnight. i want to thank those that help us in this policy and we will prevail in the long run. thank you. supervisor london breed: thank you. colleagues, colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. madam clerk, please call item 46. city clerk: item 46, an ordinance to
amend the planning code by establishing a new citywide transportation sustainability fee and spending application of the existing transit impact development fee with some exceptions as long as the transportation sustainability fee remains operative applying the transportation sustainability fee to hospitals and health services, amending section 401 to add definitions reflecting these changes. >> supervisor cohen? >>supervisor malia cohen: very briefly, colleagues. this is a duplicated copy of the tsf which was sent back to committee so we can memorialize a new fee structure for hospital and medical services use. after several conversations i'm pleased to report that we reached an agreement with non-profit hospitals asking them and they accepting to
contribute to the system. i want to take a moment to thank the staff that assisted my office and helping us to come to this agreement. ed reiskin, lisa and planning department, colleen chala and department of public health, andrea and members of the hospital council and my very talented legislative aide. this is a balance that we have struck and insures the hospitals and medical facility contributing to our transportation needs. i understand the city attorney has one clean up change to this ordinance that mr. gibner is going to talk about which is unrelated to the hospital fee. i ask for your support again, thank you. >>supervisor london breed: mr. gibner? >> city attorney john gibner.
we are supporting new uncodified language. an ordinance just passed by the mayor but not gone into effect and another ordinance that is the same trailing it. we wanted to add some language to acknowledge the first ordinance and knowing this new ordinance isn't intended to change that ordinance except where it's specifically makes changes. there is some language in the ordinance that passed who weeks ago that is not included in this ordinance and this ordinance is not intended to change any of that language. i don't know if supervisor cohen has circulated the language, but i can read it into the record if anybody wants. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen, i don't have a copy of the amendments. >> mr. gibner, could you please read it into the record. >> sure, this would be to the
uncodified sections. specifically the board recognizes that ordinance no. 200-15. 150790 enacted on december 5, 2015, and not yet effective. this ordinance does not supercede any ordinance except specifically provided here. ordinance no. 200-15 was adopted by ordinance in 20015 and should be in the codification of section 4-1-1a. >>supervisor london breed: supervisor cohen, would you like to move those amendments? >> i would like to move those amendments. second >> by supervisor avalos.
colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: also we had another amendment discussed in land use as well set in july of this year as a date that non-commercial buildings would be subject to the new tsf and the difference between what they are paying in the tid and tsf in conformance with what was in place with residential buildings. this will be to the structures in san francisco. thank you, colleagues for supporting that amendment. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. madam clerk, on item no. 46 as amended, can we please call the roll. city clerk: supervisor breed, aye, campos, aye, christensen, aye, supervisor cohen, aye, supervisor farrell, aye, supervisor kim, aye,
supervisor mar, aye, supervisor tang, aye, supervisor wiener aye, supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos. there are 11 ayes. >>supervisor london breed: this ordinance is passed on the first reading. next item. city clerk city clerk item 47. urging establishment of fair and effective guidelines for beach fires at ocean beach. >>supervisor london breed: supervisor mar? >>supervisor eric mar: thank you. this protects the longstanding issues with beach fires with our city and national park service to maintain one of the treasures of san francisco but also to create a sustainable ocean beach. i wanted to thank supervisors tang, yee, avalos, wiener and farrell
and campos for this. beach bonfires have created a recreational activity and one of the activities that have been enjoyed by families, young,000 thooz and many people and shared with my office how deep this goes and enjoying bonfires back as far as 1890 around ocean beach near the cliff house and many serving themselves after a long day of is surfing and would be collected for use and in the middle of the 20th century, surfer is needed this along the beach after surfing. a lot of the
beach fires have taken place around fulton street close to lincoln boulevard to where supervisor tang's district is. but in 2007, after national park service tried to shutdown bonfire parks, community groups worked with the parks and city to limit the area between stairwell 15-20 which is roughly between fulton and somewhere close to lincoln boulevard where people are confined to about 10-12 fire pits. importantly, this kept fires away from environmentally sensitive areas and homes and made clean up easier as well. i think it's an example of a guideline and partnership that have improved people's experience at ocean beach and new national park
superintendent leonard has extended the deadline for input for the process of the national park service on limiting bonfires. i encourage people to go to the national park website to give input all the way up to friday. the resolution we are hearing today would establish fair and effective guidelines for ocean beach. acknowledge that that parks historically that have been in our city and national park service. the maintenance of ocean beach is a shared responsibility between all of us. in the spirit of that, i initiated and the board approved two budget cycles, $235,000 to the recreation and parks department. the recreation and parks department creating a volunteer group and i want to thank recreation and parks for establishing that and also establishing an education campaign to
educate others so they don't leave no trace and make the park better than what it was when they got there. this is an important resolution because it's urging the national parks service to listen to local communities around ocean beach and beach goers and residents that have depended on bonfires and recreational activities over the years. please continue to give input into the process and the national parks service makes it's determination. i urge support and thank all the cosponsors as well. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, supervisor mar. colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. item 48. city clerk: a resolution designating edgewood center for children and families as an evaluation and treatment facility, pursuant to california welfare and institution code
section. >>supervisor london breed: colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. >> item no. 49. city clerk: item 49 to appoint miriam zouzounis. >>supervisor london breed: supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: i would like to thank you for appointing miriam to this commission and we want to thank her for her support and how much she has been involved. she will be a great addition to the small business commission. i want to thank her for her service. supervisor london breed: thank you, supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: thank you. i want to say some words of support of miriam. and glad she's applied for the
small business commission. her family runs and owns ted's market in the south of market and they have been a tremendously good neighbor and a large foot print in the neighborhood because they have been so generous in giving and actively participate ing in many activities and great to see a young woman joining one of our commissions. so many of our young women are sponsors in san francisco and i think she'll do an amazing job in representing. all small business owners but in particular this voice. i'm really happy that you applied and that you will be joining this city in advising us in supporting small businesses which creates a lot of jobs here in san francisco. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. supervisor kim, supervisor mar? >>supervisor eric mar: i want to thank you and say that miriam
zouzounis continues to support and been a tremendous leader on many fronts bringing different groups together. also with her work with the safe and san francisco rights ordinance and the healthy food retail ordinance and even tricky small business bigger chain issues with the working group. she's an amazing leader and i think she'll be a great addition to the small business commission. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. seeing no other names on the roster. colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved. roll call for
introductions. >> supervisor breed? supervisor london breed: thank you. today i have four items. first item is requesting our budget and legislative analyst to conduct a full performance audit of all the homeless services in san francisco. the board's contract with the budget and legislative analyst stipulates that the bla will conduct 3 audits each year on the gao committee. i have been on the committee for 3 years now and the bla conducted an audit of the san francisco fire department and one our senior service requested this and i want to thank supervisor avalos for joining me in
requesting this audit. we are looking for all services in san francisco with provider specificity. >> no. 2, homeless review population data and needs assessment and contracting procedures for homeless services including how contracting services are meeting the needs and contracts for monitors are quality performance. we are looking to particular is services for homeless targeted population with behavioral health needs. no. 4, the existing mix and funds for supporting this. supervisor's report that the city spends $165 million per year on homelessness. that side 2 years ago and the figures are close to $2 million now. we are looking at best practice surveys to
identify strategies for homeless services that are succeeding in other cities. we are spending over $2 million each year and yet 255 people still continue to be homeless in san franciscans and thousands sleep in the streets every night. first we need to understand the most case by case, dollar for dollar level what is working and what isn't working and what others are doing successfully so we can doop duplicate that. i look forward to reviewing that report and posting a hearing at g ao sometime next year. the other item i want to briefly address is our on going efforts to increase affordable housing production not only in district 5 but
throughout the city. this morning mayor ed lee and i announced that we are reconducting the housing measure for the ballot for affordable housing that builders will be required to build . the housing coalition of advocates and city leaders and non-profit developers. i'm confident we will develop a successful proposals to increase inclusionary of affordable housing requirement. we have to. the on-site requirement implemented by voters in prop c in 2012 is simply not doing enough. it's just not doing the job. in fact in today's housing criticize in san francisco, prop c has unfortunately become obsolete and creating more affordable housing at times preventing us from requiring more than 12%. we have felt that impact
firsthand in district 5 as we try to increase affordability standards. 12% is not enough and we are pushing for a new larger measure to increase affordable housing. we are increasing the housing working group and look forward to leading the effort at the board of supervisors. san franciscans even well paying jobs are struggling to find affordable homes and can't afford the homes they already have. we must push the envelope and make it possible for san franciscan to be able to afford and i intend to do that in 2016. i also have an in memoriam for ms.estell crawford. i know the family is in the
audience. ms. crawford was the san francisco heritage redevelopment agency and advisory committee and board member of freedom west homes for more than 40 years. her surviving siblings include -- leroy sykes, her children, larry, donna, lonnie. and she had 12 grandchildren and 5 great grandchildren. she passed away november 11th of this year. she leaves behind a host of family and friends and a community that truly loves her and she will be missed. thank you to the family members who are here today and we will be adjourning the meeting in her honor. last but not least, colleagues, i have an imperative item. it is of the most importance
here today. we will be reviewing this item towards the end of our meeting, but i wanted to make a few comments about this item. more specifically, this is commending our colleague supervisor julie christensen. supervisor christensen came to the board earlier this year. hit the ground running, rolling up her sleeves and has done a remarkable job not just for district 3, but for the city and county of san francisco. i remember her first meeting where she basically had a ceqa appeal in her district. she knew it inside and out and made an incredible decision to work with both sides and i was extremely impressed because she just hit the ground running and did a fantastic job of that first meeting. when i was out in district 3 with supervisor
christensen and she noticed some graffiti on one of the newspaper stands and some newspaper stand was broken. she took a picture of it and sent it to dpw asking they fix this. she stopped right in the middle of what she was doing and that's exactly not just the kind of supervisor christensen is. but over 20 years she's been an incredible advocate for district 3. fighting for the joe demaggio playground and which raised a lot of money to open that playground which just happened less that a month ago. she was a major advocate of the north beach library and was very instrumental in getting that library built and open and available to the residents in her community and she was also instrumental in the central subway to north
beach and fisherman's wharf. no matter where supervisor christensen is, i know she is committed to this city and she will continue to fight hard for this city and will continue to be an advocate for san franciscans everywhere. she has been an amazing colleague and i am so thankful for the time that we've had on the board of supervisors to work together. so sarment -- as a result of your commitment, today i'm releasing an imperative agenda item which i rarely do and actually i have only done on one other occasion. today i'm introducing that to commend our colleagues supervisor julie christensen for over 20 years of service to the city and county of san francisco. thank you, supervisor, christensen. i know when you leave the board of supervisors, you will continue
to be the same advocate and bring that same passion that you brought to the board. you will continue to bring that same passion to your district for years to come and i'm just grateful to have had the opportunity to work with you. so thank you. at this time, if there are any other members of the board who would like to say any comments, i will recognize you now before we move on to the next member on roll call for introductions. supervisor wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much, president breed for introducing this imperative item to commend our colleague and my friend julie christensen. julie, we will certainly miss you. i will miss you dearly at the board of supervisors but i also know you are not going anywhere because you are deeply committed our community and after a very difficult election day within a few days, i started seeing you at
community events where i might have been caught up in a ball somewhere showed your strength and your commitment to the community. you know, i for years have been inspired by julie's work, not just work in the community because we all do work in the community, but really being able to deliver pretty massive contributions to the neighborhood. and not that many people, a lot of people claim credit for different playgrounds and libraries and pools and other things that go into a neighborhood and success as many parents. in your case there was not even the slightest exaggeration. some of these things would not have happened but for your leadership. i want to thank mayor lee for really i think making an inspired appointment to the board of supervisors and
it's been such a real pleasure to work with you here in this building. i know it's been a tough year. i can only imagine taking office, never having campaigned before and never holding elected office before and having did kind of fight you had in the last year immediately. that's something i have not gone through. when you run for office from scratch, you #3w8d -- -- build that up. i think you have conducted yourself with grace and commitment. i would like to thank you for that service and i know that service will continue. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, supervisor wiener. supervisor tang? >>supervisor katy tang: thank you for your service. i will definitely miss you as well. in your short amount of time in the board of supervisors you
have shown incredible legislation that will have long lasting effects. i know that you don't need the title of supervisor to continue doing the amazing things for district 3 and the rest of the city which as everyone has said you have already demonstrated prior to being here. i really and our entire office has enjoyed working with your staff, gary, mason, all of them have been wonderful. i applaud you for again taking on this roll when you are asked to do so. i know how you felt when you received that call. so, again, it's not easy to have to turn around and campaign so quickly. thank you for everything you have done and look forward to seeing you in the community. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, supervisor tang, supervisor farrell? >>supervisor mark farrell: thank you. julie, i'm going to echo comments.
as mentioned, this was not the last we are going to see of you. on a personal level, it's been great working with you as a colleague and from each one of us, it's been great to work with you and meeting your husband and mom and sister. we are going to miss you. but we look forward to working together in other capacities. i think the city is so lucky to have people like yourself thrust into this role and neighborhood leaders like yourself and on a personal level again, it's just been personally a great experience to get to know you and work with you and look forward to continue to working with you whatever that capacity maybe. congratulations on a great year. >>supervisor london breed: thank you very much, supervisor farrell. supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: thank you, i
also want to recognize supervisor christensen. even when you are not on the same side of issues you can respect each other on differing opinions and that's great about this board. i have to respect that anyone who works and fights hard for their neighborhood and communities for what they believe and their constituents want to see and i think we can all agree that your work in north beach playground was incredibly important not just for your neighborhood, but the city as well. i think finally the one thing we can all say that this is a challenging and tough job and having watched many of us although not all of us experienced on this as our first year on the board of supervisors and the trials and tribulations that come with it, i want to give you major props for going through one of those years as well. i certainly had one my first year on the board of supervisors. it's always challenging to watch someone else go through
something like that. but you really, you dove right into it. you weren't ever scared to express your opinion and your position which can be very intimidate to go do when you are new to chambers, but i really appreciated that you stood strong and that you continued to fight for your community here. so, you know, looking forward to continuing to working with you. no longer as a supervisor but continue to go -- working with you. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. we will move this forward at the end of our meeting. with that, i also want to mention for my in memoriam, there are other members in the audience for ms.estell,
if you can stand up. our commander -- ally. please stand and be recognized. we will be adjourning the meeting on her behalf. she will be truly missed. thank you for all being here today. with that, madam clerk, the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisor campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you. i'm wishing my colleagues a very happy holiday season and hope they had an enjoyable thanksgiving. i have a couple items today, first is a piece of legislation i'm introducing and i would like to thank supervisor farrell for
working with my staff to make this happen and supervisors avalos, mar and yee. this particular stipulationen insures that we protect the diverse, culture, arts and community festivals that makes san francisco what it is. as you look at that issue, security place an important role in our festivals but security can also be very costly. what we are proposing is a set of amendments to the 10b ordinance by creating a clear timeline and transparent process for how festivals apply for security. we intent to ensure that festival organizations are not hit with unfor seen cost for their events and therefore making it impossible to put that event together. we have spent a year working on this matter and
i want to thank my staff, carolyn gus in for spending a lot of time and prior to carol, nathan alde. we would thought be where we are today without the collaboration with the san francisco police department and specifically chief -- suhr who has been working with us around the 10b program. festivals are a huge economic engine for san francisco. in the year 2014 and if you look only and lgbt festivals, the economic impact of those festivals is clear. the director indirect economic impact can be as high as $495 million and more than 4,000 jobs supported by
these -- festivals and that's only lgbt festivals in 2014. if we look back, these festivals have had over $1 billion in festivities and supported thousands of jobs in san francisco. my stipulation has three components. first it creates a time line for when festival organizers must apply for the policing process and when police must respond for the festival and an appeals process which is not existent for the san francisco police if a request for police was denied or a number has been recommended is problematic. the third piece which is
actually something i'm very excited about is it creates a data collection process through the san francisco entertainment commission detailing how many police officers are being used for events and how much money is spent related to the 10b program. by collecting this data, we can better understand how the 10 b program impacts festivals and the entertainment industry as a whole. again, i want to thank chief suhr for his support and lieutenant and officer navin for his input and would like to thank the community for their work on this and acknowledge the work of terrence allen and carl son. san francisco would not be the incredible city it is without many of the festivals and entertainment venues we have with our music, dance, food that make san francisco unique.
we have the festival organizers for this culture and beauty that this city has and ensureing the safety of our neighborhood. the second item i have is around legislation that we discussed when we honored and recognized the work of equal pay advisory board. again, if you remember the equal pay ordinance requires contractors and subcontractors who do business to submit a report on compensation of equal pay. the equal pay advisory board has been meeting this year to analyze
the data collection that identify wage gaps based on gender and ethnicity in san francisco. to dough -- do so in a way that minimize the burden on san francisco as they provide this data. putting this together has been very challenging. it's something that no one in this country in arguably in the world has been able to do up to this point. so we are very grateful for the work of the advisory board. what i'm introducing today is a hearing request first and foremost to review the final report that should be released in the next couple of weeks. we have met with the human rights commission and in anticipation of some of the recommendations, the second piece of this introduction is to amend the original legislation to amend the existing headlines that align
with the recommendations of the board. we specifically want to make the following points to ensure the proper implementation of the equal pay legislation. that the first phase will involve working with the controllers office to develop a pilot study for compensation analysis >> because the city has information on data. and update the records. phase three of the implementation will allow equal pay reporting to
piggy back on the system, the city comptrollers office and legislation for contractors and grant recipients who do not use at the elation system. i agree the equal pay ordinance makes more sense and more thoroughly to adequately implement that law. therefore the ordinance i'm introducing today would amend the administrative code to extend the deadline for the initial equal pay reports from january 31, 2016, to july 3, 2017. the ordinance also extend the sunset data to july 22, 2018.
the final item is not something that i'm happy i have to do, but it's something that i believe is necessary as we move forward with the continued implementation of the city's identification car program, the id card that san francisco has been leading the way and has become such a success. unfortunately i have recently heard from a number of constituents about some accounts for some individuals that had a negative experience to go through the process of having a city id card and the way that many of these individuals have felt disrespected in that office is very alarming and it's because of that, that today i'm introducing a hearing request
on the operations, the policy and training procedures and the overall kvz customer service that takes place with this program. we have asked the county clerk of the city to do a presentation as part of this hearing and we specifically want them to explain what kind of procedures, training and other processes to have in place to ensure their office is free of senior phobia, homophobia. a particular concern an issue raised by latino community and felt disrptd
respected. what makes san francisco unique is that we can create programs like the municipal id cards and that legislation has become a model for the rest of the country and we want to continue to be a model and for that to happen, we need to make sure the concerns that have been raised are addressed swiftly and quickly. the rest i submit. >> thank you. madam president? >> thank you, i want to go back to our 3:00 p.m. special order, madam clerk. let's go to one of our hearings which should not take very long items 53- 61. city clerk: madam president, you are speaking about items 58-61.
public hearing appeal of conditional use authorization 22 ord court. item 59, proog conditional use authorization 22 ord court. item 60. disapproving conditional use authorization 22 ord court. and 61, preparation of findings related to conditional use authorization people 22 ord court. >>supervisor london breed: we will consider this conditional use authorization to increase the existing square footage and more than 100% by constructing a new approximately
dwelling unit. without objection we will proceed as as follows: up to 10 minutes by appellant and representatives and 2 minutes per speaker in support of the appeal, 10 minutes from presentation from the planning commission and 10 minutes from the project sponsor and representatives and 10 minutes for speaker opposition for appeal. finally up to 3 minutes for rebuttal from the appellant and appellant representative. at this time, we will open up the hearing and i will recognize supervisor scott wiener. >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much, madam president. colleagues, i'm happy to report that we do have a resolution of this item. i first want to thank andre's tower and my office for doing a yomans work to help
mediate the project sponsor and i want to thank mr. power for his extraordinary work in getting this appeal resolved. colleagues, i want to outline to you the agreement on the parties and at the conclusion of hearing, i want to make a motion to reject the conditional use and to adopt conditional use as revised and i will articulate that motion at the end of the hearing. my understanding is that the two sides will affirm that they have agreed to these terms. i want to briefly outline for you what the parties agreement is. so, in addition to the conditions imposed by the planning commission, when it issued the conditional
use, the amendments period of time agreement are as follows: reducing the massing of the existing 22 ord court building and allowing for additional excavation on the ground floor requiring a setback of the roof deck above the existing building and the new building facing state street, adding sound rated and bird safe glass as the roof deck enclosure. maintaining the setback for the new property at 22 ord court facing third street and requiring areas in the setback and requiring the construction plan be prepared for admitting -- i also understand the parties have agreed to a separate agreement on a property
that ma occur at 24 ord court although it's not subject to appeal before us today. those are the amendments. to the conditional use the parties have agreed to. so madam president, i understand you will proceed with the hearing now. i will ask as the parties come up they indicate their agreement to these changes. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, supervisor wiener, okay. the appellant or representative can now come forward. >> good afternoon. >> madam, please speak directly into the microphone. public speaker: my name is maryann droezer. i'm speaking on behalf of jack
keeting who is the named appellant in this matter. jack keeting is the chair of the eureka valley neighborhood of planning use committee. jack keeting has authorized me to state the supervisors have come to an agreement on the project and we no longer oppose the project at 22 ord court based on the agreement reached with the project sponsors. >> thank you. >> okay. are there any members of the public who would like to speak in support of this appeal? you have 2 minutes. public speaker: i'm johnson.
only to turn to drugs which it will not only on this resolution that we see in other areas that we hadn't been in our schools you will find out all of this information that you need to know to organize in the right places and timing to make sure they will miss the times we need in our rewards and maximum for housing for our children. >>supervisor london breed: thank you very much. is there any additional public
comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i'm assuming the planning department does not have a presentation since there is an agreement that has been reached? >> we do have a presentation, but given the statement, there is no reason to present it. thank you. >> thank you very much. okay. for the project sponsor, you will have up to ten minutes. 10 minutes. >> thank you, allen murphy on behalf of the project sponsor, kenneth tam. we agree to the modification of the approval and appreciate the board's consideration to prove the conditional use authorization with those modified conditions. >>supervisor london breed: thank you very much. are there any members of the public who would like to speak on behalf of the project sponsor? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there rebuttal? i'm assuming since
there is agreement, there is no need for rebuttal. okay, colleagues, the hearing has been held and is now closed. the hands are now in the hands of the board of supervisors. supervisor wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you, madam president. i would first make a motion to amend item 60 which is the item to approve and amend item 60 with the additional conditions which i articulated and distributed in writing to the members of the board. i would make a subsequent motion. >> so you want to amend the item? >> item 60. the disapproval. >> okay, supervisor wiener has made a motion to amend. is there a second? second by supervisor farrell. colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this item is approved.
>> madam president i will make a further motion to object the conditional use issued by the planning department and issue effectively a revised conditional use specifically i move item 60 as amended and move to table items 59 and 61. >>supervisor london breed: okay, supervisor wiener has made a motion. is there a second? seconded by supervisor farrell. madam clerk, please call the roll. city clerk: supervisor breed, aye, supervisor campos, aye, supervisor christensen, aye, supervisor cohen, aye, supervisor farrell, aye, supervisor kim, aye, supervisor mar, aye, supervisor tang, aye, supervisor wiener, aye, supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos, aye. there are 11 ayes. >>supervisor london breed: okay, item 60 as amended passes and items
59 and 61 are both tabled. madam clerk, can we please go to the next 3:00 p.m. special order. the peralta is going to be continued? supervisor campos. call items 54-57. city clerk: pleading appeal of tentative map 369 peralta avenue, items 5, 56, 57, approve and disapprove the obtaining of the parcel map. >> supervisor campos? >>supervisor david campos:
thank you. we have tabled this item before because we are waiting for action of the courts. the courts have set a trial for july 15th and the appellants have proposed mediation which will take place december 10th. with that in mind, i hereby to make a motion to continue to -- table this item in the january 16, 2016. >> thank you. supervisor campos has made a motion to continue the item to january 16, 2016, second by supervisor mar. are there any members of the public who would like to make a comment on this continuance? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we take this without objection. without objection, continuance
is approved. this will continue to january 16, 2015. madam clerk, our final special 3:00 p.m. order. 50-53. city clerk: public hearing to appeal the tentative map 40 bernal heights boulevard and to make the environmental findings under ceqa. item 51, a motion to approve a decision for the vernal heights boulevard project. the motion to disapprove did position and disapprove the map for this project and item 53 the preparation of findings. >>supervisor london breed: colleagues, is there a motion to excuse supervisor campos. motion by supervisor tang and yee without objection. supervisor campos is excused. all right, colleagues we have
before us an appeal of a tentative map for 40 bernal heights. for this hearing we will consider the department approving a tentative map for a proposed sublot subdivision at vernal heights boulevard is consistent with the plan forker any consistent plan that applies. without objection we will proceed as follows.. up to ten 10 minutes for the appellant to describe the grounds of their appeal. up to 2 minutes for public commenter is to speak in support of their appeal. up to 10 minutes for department of public works for the planning department to describe the grounds decision to approve the tentative map. up to ten 10 minutes for the real parties and interest to present and 10 minutes for public commenters to speak in support of the real party and interest and finally the appellant will have up to three 3 minutes for a
rebuttal argument. okay. with that, we will now move for the public hearing and the appellant is up for presentation. >> good afternoon. before i start my ten 10 minutes i would like to make a procedural motion if i might we were just informed this morning. this is really not the type of appeal about the recusal of supervisor campos. this matter has been pending for months. we are a little taken a back by that. we have measured this lot ourselves and found that it was more than 500 feet and more than supervisor campos
house and the acknowledge and input is essential. we do not believe there is a conflict here. this is not about money. denial of this project would not benefit supervisor campos. indeed, the building of $3 million housing for me might well benefit me. this is about neighborhood quality, neighborhood character. it is and therefore we do not believe there is a conflict and we would request that the board of supervisors obtain and opinion from the fair and political practices commission that supervisor campos is not conflicted in this matter. that's our motion. >> sir, your time is ticking. you have 8 minutes and 28 seconds left. >> i would request, president breed, that i have 10 minutes to address the merits. that was the procedural matter
sprung on us this morning as i say. my name is chris whitman. i live in bernal heights and i'm here representing myself. approximately 120 neighbors in the immediate plan of the subdivision and 30 or more outside of the 300-foot radius. we want to thank you for hearing us today although it was difficult for many to leave work to attend today although a number of here in attendance and i would ask that they stand so the board can see the broad support we have. we've also prepared a graphic illustration of the distribution of opposing parties to this subdivision. the subdivision is in black. the opposing parties in red. i do notice this red should be here. so there are a couple of small
errors here. the fact of the matter is that this represents the distribution of the 150 people who have opposed the project. all of the people and immediately adjacent to the project oppose this project. i would like to also address the remaining supervisors in the room and suggest to you that this is a matter of citywide importance. i know you are involving with large downtown development issues, but i submit to you that health development in the city's neighborhood is essential to the ecology of the city. i'm sure many of you have walked around the west village in new york city, other areas like that and have seen the way that small carriage homes and town houses stand in relation to the large towers of wall street on madison
avenue. that is the same ecology and relationship we are talking about here. bernal heights is a small village and same to the type of ecology and the granting of this subdivision, diminishes the character and quality of that village. over the year we have met repeatedly with the planning department urging our concerns about the neighborhood character as defined by building mass ratio as relationship to houses. these efforts have fallen on deaf ears. this brings us to a threshold matter. i'm sure you have all read the planning department memo which claims that our issues are planning issues and not subdivision issues. we urge you to reject this contention for three reasons. no. 1, we strongly believe the
preservation of the neighborhood character and priority of the planning use district and the master plan begins with the foot print of the lots. in fact, we have before us concrete plans for these four proposed parcels. in deed, the planning memo which you have comingles planning and subdivision complex throughout. most importantly the state's subdivision act requires a legislative body of the city to deny approval of a tentative map if it is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. thus we contend you cannot approve this subdivision if it results in violation of such plans and we believe that subdivision is inevitably inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood. we talked a lot about character. let me just quote briefly from the bernal heights special use district in the city with topography that has old buildings in a lot generally smaller than the lots smaller than other low density area. there is a special use district. this is the culmination of a long history in 1979, bernal neighbors, it actually began in the 60s where a gold rush where large house is were built in the bernal heights and adopted the east slope building guidelines none of which are considered in the board,
the planning department's memo. 1991 the bernal heights use district was adopted. that was not addressed in the memo. we are here today on two issues: all of the city's general and specific plans call for community input and involvement, but our input in this case has been systematically ignored. there are two issues: one is neighborhood character. the mass density in shear site of this development to open space. in our neighborhoods within 300 feet of the
site, proposed to put substantially bigger lots on substantially bigger buildings on substantially smaller lots. this creates a density. instead on page 3, refers to the smaller and larger lots rather than the larger sides. our second is our repeated suggestion that our planning developers consider a three parcel solution. on this point, the planning department repeats what it threatens. on the last memo we read while three parcels will reduce the overall density of the subject property, it may have an inverse impact on mapping
because there are none applicable to the site. notice the memo would reduce the overall density. notice the use of the word may related to mapping t department itself is not sure. more specifically the notion that there will be little or no restraint on the size of the building in a three parcel development rights large portion of the code of the special use district of the bernal heights special use district has several provisions that limit the size of building which lot no. 3 would be and expands the size of the backyard. the larger the lot is.
so by subdividing it into former lots. it does not consider set backs and how it's built to this maximum approach and the general guidelines and plan that has to do with the supply to the subdivision code. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you. before we move to public comment in support of the appeal, since the appellant raised an issue about supervisor campos' residence and the 500-foot rule. it's a rule if you own property within 500 feet of the subject property you are legally prohibited from state law from participating in the adjudication of the appeal
and when we take office, i know i was given a map with a circle with around where i live. i will ask the city attorney to comment on that because i know that supervisors do always consult with the planning department and the city attorney to ensure we are all very careful. >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. that's correct. the planning department prepared a map for supervisor campos when he first took office in 2009, shortly after he first took office with a 500-foot radius around the property. we reviewed that map with the supervisor and his staff earlier today and concluded that the proposed project is within the 500-foot radius. the current practical commission rules on this question by essentially supervisor campos has a
conflict unless the spcc provide advice that considering all the factors that his property will not be materially impacted by the project because the spcc has not issued any advice and we haven't asked for it at this point, we have advised supervisor campos that he must recuse himself on this matter. >> thank you very much. we now move to public comment in support of the appeal. public comment will be 2 minutes. if there are any members of the public who wish to comment in support of the appeal, please lineup. if there is anyone who due to disability, let us know.
public speaker: members of the governing body. i would submit that because the members of this body were not paying attention to the appellant during his speaking, in fact three were having a jovial conversation they are not receiving a fair hearing and you are prejudice to their hearing because you didn't listen to what the person was saying. supervisors avalos and wiener and i can't remember the other name, were having a private conversation. that is not fair. if you are a hearing officer, you have an obligation to at least listen to what the people are saying to you. you get away with not listening to the public on a regular basis, but when you are holding a hearing you need to be fair and you are not being fair. you were texting on your phone and doing something else and doing anything but listen to the appellants.
you can't call yourself fair if you are not going to listen to both sides. >> next speaker. public speaker: my name is steve richen. a neighbor. being part of this project, it's been an education albeit a sad one. between 150 individuals have been part of this. this is never an n issue. we have stated the character and relations to bernal heights. there have been numerous communications with the planning department but from the beginning we have felt patronized. when we talk about the neighborhood character, we are forcing to listen to long presentations on landscaping which is staging for the ultimate sale of
these luxury homes. is subdividing these two homes require to remove two trees and ignoring the topography of the site. it is not outrageous to think the developers and architects would take these things into consideration. it's a consideration of how it relates to the neighborhood. unfortunately this situation or input has not fallen on deaf ears but what sounded like threats and changes to the house to make it worse to punish the neighbors. while i understand it's important, it seems to me it doesn't require actively assisting investors to get the most money from their investment. the education is written in the codes. thank you for listening. >> thank you, next speaker.
fishing in the sea. >> thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: thank you for listening. i live within a couple of houses of this project. i have lived there for 12 years with my family. all of that time i have worked at a neighborhood school and many of my family members live in bernal heights. if you want to know what tracts -- attracts them to bernal heights is the unique area and neighborhood. the neighborhood and character does not come from what the buildings look like on the outside. it comes from the mass. the mass of the buildings, that built space to the lot size and how the lot that's being created is going to match with the rest of the blocks in
the area. this all has an impact on the character of our neighborhood. we strongly believe the preservation of our neighborhood character which is a priority that is especially to create our neighborhood, it begins with the square foot of the lot. this is building out to the max, doesn't include a setback or yard space. it's not in consistent with what most of us live in. so i ask you today when you vote to really think about the future of this city and especially my neighborhood which i love bernal heights and think about how it affects future buildings. i hope it's not setting a precedent. thank you for listening. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, next speaker, please. public speaker: my name is
linda mcnight. i want to emphasize that 150 of my neighbors agree that we are not against this development. we are not a bunch of neighborhood zealots that don't want our neighborhood to change. i was part of the neighborhood agency and i voted for the housing south of market. i voted for approval of those designs because they fit in that neighborhood that we are creating south of market. when i have visitors to san francisco, i don't take them to the wharf, or alcatraz, but i take them through neighborhoods. bernal heights that has that character, it has a certain feel. it's changing. a lot of the facade
has a modern architecture. the larger homes are predominantly are in a minority and predominantly very small houses in bernal. i'm sure you all have driven through there and know that. this development is basically no set backs and is just a wall of large out of character houses. right up against the street. the house right across the street from it is under 1,000 square feet. these houses are huge. we feel it's important that four lots are too many. the mass and the density of the project is too large and we just want homes that fit in with our neighborhood. thank you.
>> thank you, next speaker. public speaker: my name is vernal. i live within half of block of this development. i have lived there since 1983. a lot of change has happened. i remember when the streets were unpaved. they were just on dirt roads and much has changed. i have been to the meetings for the design board for bernal heights. i have heard my neighbors be very reasonable about this process. nobody has said don't build. leave this as open space. they are saying the builder has a right to build on that property but leave it as it is.
we have all lived in bernal heights and we have taken time out of our busy lives to appeal to you and that we are not just in our own interest. to every real estate agent i have spoken to who said your value will only go up if you have 300-0000 -- 3 million, houses near you. we are asking you to think about seriously. why have 150 people in a city where you can barely get that many to agree on anything, come together to say this is not right. build something that is in character with the existing neighborhood. so that we can keep that little place that everybody refers to as being very special and keep it special.
thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. public speaker: hi, thank you for being open to listening to us. my name is betsy brown, i live at 2 nebraska street. i don't think there is anybody who doesn't know that site more than i do being there for 20 years across the street. never had i imagined that after moving into that house there would be four buildings across the street wedged into a very narrow lot with a strange slope. i always knew i would have a neighbor there. at some point i'm not opposed to having building there but we are looking at something that has dramatic character out of this neighborhood. we are not here to -- bash building together but we want it
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood with it's character that has gained notoriety for it's special nature. what you are seeing in your packages is research we did that was referred to that looks at the relationship between how it's built on the lots and the overall size of the lots. what we find in our analysis is the proposed buildings for the proposed four lots completely flip the predoment ratio with far more space with open space on the lot. if we are talking about one house it would be one thing talking about an entire of four houses. that's what we would like to reinforce to you that the subdivision is not in a relevant act of this. it's actually instrumental and fundamental to what's happened next to this property so we would like you to consider that as you think about this decision.
thanks again. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: good afternoon, borpdz. thank you for listening to us. my make the is is nick. i live a block away from this site. i have lived at the house for 22 years. the back of my house overlooks that parcel. i enjoy watching the trees grow. it covered the sides of what i thought were very large buildings on the right-of-way. in fact the road along to that, i thought how on earth does such large buildings get built which are so out of scale. they do have a setback and apparently this project doesn't have a setback and they are not nearly as tall as the buildings proposed on this site. that is a huge shock and deep sadness
for me. also just a question of what really when you chop it up into four instead of three, you have smaller parcels and larger house and less open space, no possibility of growing trees and possibility of decent backyards. the subdivision should not have been approved. it was going to individually cost us a lot of money to protest which is the unfair. i urge you to support this appeal. thank you. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, next speaker, please. public speaker: thank you, i also thank you for the opportunity for hearing us. my address 130 chapman street. i appeal the decision to grant four subdivisions to the pal hat an
triangle because the lot is a triangular shape and not rectangle and make it difficult to fit four triangular lots. if such is granted it would entice later on to deny other set backs in other neighborhood concerns in order to fit that irregular shape thing. primarily the four subdivision plan runs counter to the existing neighborhood residential character that we in the 150 red dots you see on our map represent. that existing, residential neighborhood character is expressed in those 150 immediate and surrounding neighbors expressing their opinion that the four lot separation is is too much.
the existing residential character is one of cooperation, our neighborhoods cooperate, we listen to each other. this is existing, we are already there residential character. such a four lot seems to favor new residents to develop over existing residents to live there. we already live here with our diversity, wide diversity of characters in our character with wide diversity of houses, ethics, living size to lot size ratio and our community spirit. we already live here. we are the existing residential character. please note, we are agreeable to growth
, we are helpful. however, three lot subdivision is able to accommodate all of those concerns and maintain this essential existing neighborhood character. thanks for your time. appreciate it. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak in support of the appeal at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. now we will have up to 10 minutes for representative of the department of public works or planning department to describe the grounds for their decision to approve the tentative map. >> good afternoon, supervisors. bruce -- city development. we received the application may 8, 2014.
to the city june of 2014. we got the final approval from the department of city planning on august 17th, of this year. 2015, we gave the project tentative proval on the 24th and received notice of appeal on the 9th. very briefly to give city planning as much time as possible that the tentative map failed to undergo proper ceqa review where it's not consistent with the general plan and public works right hand side the board upholds the application as approved on august 24th. thank you. >> good afternoon. rodgers, planning department staff. i'm be presuming the department planning issues as you have heard the subdivision of this appeal. first let's talk about the subdivision process as well as the planning process
already under way for the proposed building. the subdivision creates the lots for the subdivision that already exist. the responsibility of this appeal is to confirm this subdivision is consistent with the plan and make a recommendation to dpw. in addition and through a separate process with it's own appeal windows, the planning department must also review the proposed homes. during our review of the construction we look at and have the ability to alter the proposed mapping which is important. here again we review the general plan, planning code and we add in the design guidelines. the review of the proposed construction is under way. after determining the design is full in compliance the department
issues the notices required by the code and also the local practice to provide a more specific review of the design and scale and mass of the buildings. this process allows us to consider the massing when we have the ability to modify it. it's here that staff or anyone who has concerns about this development will have the at some point to request a hearing before the planning commission called discretionary review. at the time of our subdivision, our review concentrates on the acts of the subdivision itself. are the lots complying? clearly yes. it's a scale of four lots and four buildings appropriate with the general plan and planning code? again, yes. these issues presently raised as part of our review as not a subdivision. staff and public and the commission can contribute to this course on mapping which is important and the commission
can provided specific direction based on the design guidelines. meaning both staff and planning commission yet to consider and impose their modification side -- to address the proposed scale. today the recommendation to subdivide the four lots is in consideration. it reduces one large lot into four properties from 1755 square feet to 2073 square feet. the code minimum is 1750 per square feet. all four lots would exceed the minimum requirements and consistent with the single family zoning district. there is actually a process that make even smaller lots than what the code requires n . in this case the project sponsor sponsor has not pursued a variance and they are requesting the larger
size. second, the appellant encourages the development that is out of scale prevailing with the character. however approval of the tentative map does not automatically entitle the property owner to develop at the maximum as allowed by code. staff frequently modify the projects during entitlement. on the matter of three lots versus four lots. contrary to the appellants claim, we did review this. in particular the response about the ultimate size of the buildings, we believe that four lots would result in a better project. it is one more house, true, but smaller building mass overall. if only three lots were approved, as the various control set backs and the requirements were applied, they would be applied only three times instead of four. this would enable each actual
building to be increased to a larger size. and this in turn may encourage larger single family homes and will result in one less home. bernal is a neighborhood with small lots and small houses and because of the housing crisis we would recommend the four houses we built here consistent with the zoning and general plan and design guidelines and lastly with some clarifying information on the special use district, there are no subdivision requirements, they rely on the planning code and lot size requirements. the way the bernal sud scale is through the massing of the building through the entitlement process. that's what we are suggesting today. that concludes my presentation. >>supervisor london breed:
supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, a question for ms. rodgers, what are the entitlements we are expecting during the entitlement review? >> in this case, the application that we have before us is code complying so there is no cu and no discretionally action required. however the public could request a dr hearing before the commission. >> okay. so is there any, if the public does not request a dr hearing there will be no action before the planning commission, is that correct? >> exactly. if it's determined we are out of scale. a review is under at this point. >> if there is a review and the planning department determine that it's better for a three building, dividing to three instead of four, could
that be made? >> yes. the planning commission is not bound to four houses and can provide direction to the applicant in how to revise the application and there will be a new building entitlement application as part of the review. >> what are the processes for that >> the commission would hear the dr request and suggest ways they can come back with the project to satisfy the commission. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor avalos. seeing no other names on the roster we will move on with the hearing and ask for the real party and interest to present at this time. you will have up to 10 minutes. >> thank you, on behalf of the
project sponsor. in fact the appellant is using the subdivision appeal process to challenge a development project outside the appropriate city approval process. the item at issue before you today is a subdivision of an existing 7612 -square foot lot into four separate parcels. lot size division are governed by the state division map act. it provides six considerations cha # -- which a local consideration of the body and none apply to this appeal. briefly, the first consideration one whether the subdivision complies with the map act and/or subdivision code. it is in compliance by both the department of public works and bureau of
streets and mapping and the bureau department. the second criterion is whether it is consistent with the city's general plan. acknowledged that the new lots are in fact with the size of this area. the subdivision approval did does not prove the development and the planning commission will review the development guidelines as well as any individual public comment to the development of these lots. other thing i have mentioned about consistency with the general plan is the appellants suggestion that creates three lots would in fact create larger lots which are larger than the typical size in this area and allow for houses even that are currently proposed and larger than what the typical scale is in the neighborhood. the third criterion is what is
physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. again, the four new lots are consistent with the minimum lot size requirements of the planning code. they are consistent with the average lot size with the vicinity with the appellant's own filing and one dwelling each permitted by the planning code. the second subdivision that is likely to cause damage to wild life and habitat. environment al review for this process forren dangered rare and species and already by existing development and the subdivision will be consistent with the urban development project in the city. the fifth criterion is whether the subdivision will cause serious health problems, again t subdivision will make for low density and housing and will not create a serious public
health problem. the fact that the project will lead to access to more public open space. the project sponsor will be at their own cost constructing a public staircase and landscaping along the street next to the project site so it will lead to more access. the sixth criterion whether it will conflict with the public easement on the property. the property will result in greater public access to carver street through the construction of that staircase. so in short, the appellants provide no basis under the state map act and the code. what we have here is an appellant who is very clearly opposed to the project using the map appeal as a new venue to challenge the project. i would submit this is not a precedent we want to set at this point. there is already a very robust
approval process in place that this project is expected to go through. we are working with the east slope design review board and our correspondence who are very happy with the data and will continue that dialogue and will have an opportunity and the planning appropriate body with other residential guidelines and the board of appeals will have the at some point to hear any building permit appeals and of course it's very possible that this project will be back in front of the board of supervisors on appeal at the ceqa document on any project's approval. adding this new appeals process and the city concerning the fact that we have a very robust review process which is still to play on. so, with that said, we
respectfully request the board deny this appeal, allow the development under the city's well established procedures and we are here if you have any questions. thank you. >>supervisor london breed: thank you very much. i will now the open this up for public comment for those wishing to speak in support. i'm sorry, ma'am, you spoke in favor. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. now, i will allow a rebuttal for up to three 3 minutes from the appellant >> thank you. eileen i will -- endeavor to stay within my 3 minutes. first, subdivision in this in bernal is very unusual. in the 25 years i have lived there, i have never experienced this
subdivision process before. all of the developments were already in existing lots. i found it very interesting that the spokesperson from the planning department talked about our local process essentially not to consider the special use district on the guidelines at this point but to push all of that into the planning process. well, unfortunately, the subdivision map act, the state code says no local agency shall approve a tentative map unless at that time there is a finding that it is consistent with the general plan. and the general plan is very very specific.
11.3. objective of the general plan. accommodation of growth shall be achieved without damaging existing residential neighborhood character. the city should continue to use a community planning process to direct growth and change according to a community based vision. this is all being thrown out the window in our local process. i submit to you that that is illegal. it violates the state subdivision map act and we ask that you reject the subdivision approval and you send this back to the planning department and the developer to give us something that is consistent with the neighborhood character so that we can live as good neighbors going forward. this
is going to be a blot on the neighborhood and a very bad precedent going forward. thank you very much. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. okay, at this time item no. 50 has been held and is now closed. supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, president breed. i meant to ask a question related to the hearing about any potential ceqa issues that might be related to this project? >> thank you, supervisor, rodgers through the board president from the planning department staff. it's a good question. when we had written our response to the board that the ceqa appeal was open and ceqa appeal maybe filed. since our appeal response was presented to you guys, that window has closed and there was no ceqa appeal filed by the
appellant. the extension for the subdivision for ceqa review for the development proposals which we have in our office. there will be no ceqa appeal before the board since none was filed. >> can you clarify what type of review was done? what was the ruling? >> it's a class 32 exemption for development. we went through all the standard ceqa requirements and criteria to ensure it met that development and it did. looking the entire built structure in addition to the subdivision. so in the future, if the project sponsor were to change the project significantly. we would redo the ceqa and the appeal is over. >> the buildings would be less
-- or more in >> i would rely on ceqa to determine if it's under ceqa determination. >> okay. thank you. colleagues, i did have a chance to meet with the appellants in my office last week and you know, i really heard their concerns about just the change to the neighborhood and there was a lot of alarm about the kind of density that this project would create. however i did feel that what has been discussed in terms of there is still a possibility for a discretionary review bfrp -- before the planning commission that there is a lot of work in terms of what the project will actually look like and hearing from ms. rodgers and discussion with mr. gibner as well that if there was an attempt for the
residents around the site bernal heights boulevard who wanted to see if there was a possibility from going from 4-3 lots and there was a method for that as well. hearing from the planning department, if we keep this at four lots and that makes sense and looks like the lot sizes do make sense to have the four houses in the lots and to make sure they are not massive on those lots and the smaller structure that three lots would cause perhaps larger structures to be made. so seems like smaller structures is what the community would want. if three lots were to move forward then we would see that desire to see smaller structures perhaps would not necessarily go into effect to the planning process. given that to bite the apple
that the residents have, it doesn't seem this is the right place to make the determination about the process. i'm okay with the subdivision with the one lot into four for this project knowing that we can go to three in the future. i would like to motion for these items to not approve the appeal. to approve item 51 and table items 52 and 53. not approval the appeal but acknowledgeing the residents who have concerns about changes to their neighborhood and this lot that there could be other process that have to engage with the developer to have something they feel is going to be working for the neighborhood. >>supervisor london breed:
supervisor avalos has made a motion to approve item 51 and table 52 and 53. >>clerk, please call the roll. city clerk: breed aye, cohen, aye, kim, aye, mar, aye, tang, aye, wiener, aye, supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos? aye, there are 10 ayes. >>supervisor london breed: okay, colleagues. a tentative map is finally affirmed. madam clerk, can we go back to roll call for introductions. >> next, supervisor cohen, new business. >> >>supervisor malia cohen: thank you. i have no new legislation to
introduce. i would like to close to remember a wonderful man who passed away a few months ago. and in his home going ceremony, the chief of police attended and other bayview officers. it was a beautiful community event and opportunity from people from all walks of life who had the opportunity to remember mr. ben robinson to share how he touched people's lives. and a member of the community. we called him uncle ben. just to give you a brief background and profile about ben. he was known as uncle ben to the community and family and friends as benny robinson. he was known to be the heart and soul
of the bayview's hunters point for the full finger of his needs font community with kindhearted nature. mr. ben robinson served as a forward observer and combat infantry man in all black artillery regiment and experienced some of the most horrific fighting in the pacific during world war ii. he retired after receiving an honorable release from the military.
he worked in the community as a lease on -- liaison for his community with a cement trucking business. through his fierce dignity and unwavering spirit in the community. necessary year 2,000 mr. robinson founding the bayview chapter of this rotary chapter and committed to service and to provide for knows need. the bayview rotary established a robinson scholarship fund in 2011. i remember this was around the time i was sworn in as a new member of the board of supervisors and became very an acquainted with uncle ben. this fund is in honor of his life's
work to raise money for promising bayview use aspiring to their higher educational goals. on an annual basis we have from friends -- while a community mourns a giant, we have many memories of uncle ben and his memories will live on so many who will up lift and move forward our next leaders of our nation. with that said, madam clerk, i want to recognize the family and community members here in the chamber who have come to celebrate mr. robinson's memory with us. please stand, thank you. thank you for joining us. i would like to have a motion that we close out the entire board meeting in honor of mr. ben robinson. thank you.
>> thank you. >> i think at this point we can all agree that homelessness in san francisco has not only reached a crisis but an emergency. our overall homeless population has stagnated for many years. we have far too many families and children which are starting to be addressed specifically seniors and other people suffering from mental illness in our streets and other situations that need our help. during a time when our local economy is growing and strong, i do believe we need to make investment now in terms of programs and services to have the best outcomes. one of the best programs we have seen
is the navigation center in the early mission district. early data and analysis on the effects of the navigation model have pit falls of the model to learn and adapted to as needed. as you are aware, the navigation center is not set on location. the center will close it's doors in june in 2016 once construction begins. during that, i want to expand the navigation center across san francisco. to date the controllers office has released three reports. they have provided an overview of the model itself and over our traditional homeless shelters in san francisco with interviews from stakeholders and clients at the navigation center. a look at the impact the navigation center is having on homelessness in san francisco and a look at how different
city agencies and non-profit partners are creating better outcomes for those in the navigation center. i would like to thank supervisor london breed: for her legislation today and look forward to seeing how the money is spent around homelessness. the final report is to be released later this month at the end of december. i will plan to bring the mayor's office of hope and homeless agency and non-profit partners to report for this hearing as well. i look forward to hosting this hearing in mid-january and look forward to the expansion early next year particularly when the existing navigation will close. we want to make sure we will not skip i beat and provide the best service for our homeless. the rest i submit. >> thank you.
supervisor mar? >>supervisor eric mar: thank you. i have a couple of items. this is lou as last week in civic engagement. he has jury duty this week. he grew up in the richmond district and went to graduate from urban planning before joining staff in the youth commission. during his tenure, allen has been part of the youth empowerment. he's worked with youth commissioners and been the leader to young san franciscans and worked on free muni for youth and thank you to supervisors for that as well. he's also empowered
immigrated youth and thanks for that and also equitable housing and justice issues for youth and transitional issues and also a key point with the commission on the public education enrichment fund and in the 2014 campaign as well. allen has brought a deep sense of mutual respect with humility and quality and insight in his work and i want to thank him for his support of the youth commission staff. i also want to say he's gone on to work with the cal center. i wish him the best of luck. today i'm introducing a hearing request on hunger and food insecurity. as you recall, 2 years ago, december, we passed a policy to drastically reduce or end hunger and food insecurity in san francisco by
2020. it involved analyzing data from the food security task force and the tenderloin security task force that said 1/4 of san franciscans up to 225,000 people of in danger of food insecurity and during the holidays we are more aware of how many people, lots of seniors and family are going to bed hungry at night or waking up in the morning not having enough to eat as well. i think the reports from the task forces really brought to light the real suffering that happens. i know our board resolution and the city is committed to developing plans and setting goals so we are gradually reducing and dramatically reducing hung er in our city. in march of 2014, we held more hearings in our each department's plans to advance progress in achieving recommendations for ending hunger by 2020 resolution. we also set
out concrete city departments steps to get us to the goal so it's been 2 years and this hearing would help us assess how far we've gone and how far we have to go. i also want to acknowledge that we've committed millions of dollars in the last several budgets. i want to thank the budget committee and colleagues for committing money for critical senior nutrition and health programs, but also significantly impacting hung and -- hunger and food insecurity and how we are ending hunger by 2020. also we are creating legislation for increasing culture and safety. supervisor yee and kim and
wiener all attended with me as well walk sf moving memorial for traffic systems 2 weeks ago where i'm really understanding for walk sf for base of systems for traffic killings. i think it was very moving to hear the stories during march and gathering along market street. our community will see that as a district level. it's about enforcement and engineering and education. reducing speeds and really looking at methods is a tool we have. speed reduction is a strategy
and will look at how of we done in terms of reducing speeds and in district 4. patrick yee, the 87-year-old richmond district hit by a car in the crosswalk. the first traffic killing in 2015 along a high injury corridor and kelly senior, killed around the corner from my house as well on cabrillo. these stories were brought out on walk sf memorial. as we look at state streets and other programs that we are telling the human stories of the families and loses and how we need to do what we can to advance vision zero more aggressively. this budget item report will ask for assessment
and evaluation for speed reduction and strategies in the city and reports on the recent calming strategy and reducing speeding and speed limits, updating on all streets where the city has street limits and examining the data and preventing collisions and improving safety. secondly it will look at safe streets for senior strategies reports on recommendations where seniors congregate such as senior centers and care facilities and study models and best practices such as new york's senior zone along chinatown and places in manhattan. this will develop best practices and models for traffic calming measures that involve seniors with disabilities and creating safer streets as
well. another issue that's very important to me is developing a water access for all. agua for all in the central valley as we look at how to increase water fountains and tap station in their community. we looked at updates from from our cities not just from the public utilities commission but school district and other departments on achieving new water fountain drinking stations. we are almost there. we are up to 69 and next week i will be working with harlin kelly and from the health improvement partnership and communities to acknowledge that we are getting close to the 100 mark. but the 69th will be on clement street near the park by the farmers market that the community has set up. as you
know, access to water is a great strategy to curb obesity and diabetes by discouraging sweet drinks and discouraging the use of plastic water bottles. i think that water has been one of those ways and if we have access to it, it will lead to healthier lives. the fountains we will have next year are necessary as well. as we counter the soda issue and we counter the water problem going on in our world and the rest of the community. as we have clean and hetch
hetchy water is critical to the new fountains of youth in our city. next september 4th, at 10:00 a.m. join us at clemente street at third avenue. this new drink tap station will be again the 69 as we are trying to advocate for 100 in our city by next year. it the collaboration of our school district, the public utilities commission and the parks and recreation department and where the drink fountain station will be unveiled and it will be opened in 10 days. there is many coming to the district and district one but also throughout the city. i want to thank from the public utilities commission from natel and those uniting for water access
for all and fountain communities as well. one more plug before i give the mic to our next colleague, on december 8th, coming up next week from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.. richmond district merchants are holding the clemen tine will band together to carried fun family oriented experience of holiday shopping and community gathering. there is going to be a bunch of discounts and promotions and will be a way to gather earned clement street for holiday shopping. if you want more information go to clement street sf.com. thank you. the rest i will submit. >> thank you. supervisor mar. supervisor tang? >>supervisor katy tang: thank you. colleagues, last week we had a
pretty lengthy discussion in regards to neighborhood evictions where they currently reside. i said i was going to tac on that legislation. it requires the board -- rent board when they are providing notices that they are going to be evicted and to provide information what housing resources are there offered by the city's mayor's office of housing particular in below market rate and the program they maybe eligible for. i think it's pretty important as we are doing as much work that we can to strengthen our programs to allow for more affordable housing especially for our tennants that they actually know what is available and what they are eligible for. then per our existing language access ordinance, these notifications will be provided
in the various languages spelled out already. secondly, i'm introducing a resolution today that really reflects some of the work of the shelter monitoring committee. they had adopted a resolution at their last meeting to urge the human services agency to amend the eminent danger policy for the shelter systems. i would like to thank all of our female cosponsors and of course our male colleagues are invited as well. thank you supervisor's breed and kim. those involved in domestic violence incident are denied shelter admittance or not allowed to remain in a shelter for 30 days if they are in a dangerous situation that might cause harm to the family themselves. recently fsh and the monitoring
community did reduce the timeframe to 15 days. while this has been put into place, out of concern for the protection of the individuals at the shelter, it doesn't provide assistance to the victims of domestic violence who are in dire need of protection and services. as we all know domestic violence affects the thousands of san francisco resident s and one of the most under reported crimes to transitional housing to provide that support that they need during domestic violence situations. in fiscal year 2013-2014, city funded emergency shelters provided 3500 bed nights and one permanent supportive housing program providing 11069 nights to services. there needs to be a change in
policy. so adopting the shelter monitoring committee recommendations would most importantly prohibit the denial of services based on being a victim of domestic violence and being a self disclosure of domestic violence and no victim of domestic violence should be turned away from shelter or services. furthermore we do not want to discourage victims from reporting. in addition the changes would require assessments upon intake to assess all families, establish protective order to contact law enforcement and updating manuals for staff and improving policy to renew and establish shelter providers. so as we all know victims of domestic violence are already facing difficult battles. i want to thank the shelter monitoring community members and domestic violence advocates for
their dedicated work on this issue. 1 person in particular, nicholas is part of the shelter monitoring committee. he was really key in bringing a lot of these issues to our attention. i think actually when i was sitting on the gao committee and unfortunately he will be leaving the shelter monitoring committee very shortly, i think the end of this week is his last week. so i just would like to thank him for everything he's done and all the members who contributed to this particular change pursuant with the hsa w that i will submit. >> thank you. supervisor tang. supervisor wiener >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. today i'm introducing a reoccurring oversight hearing request dpor a quarterly hearing so we can have full transparency on the city's
enforcement effort around short-term rentals. prop fchl , of course during this ballot measure and those who are opposing it and those who are supporting it, we all want strong enforcement regarding show term rentals. we know there are short-term rentals occurring right now violating the law that are causing problems in neighborhoods that are really not in the spirit of the regulations that we passed late last year and in the middle of this year. we need to make sure that we are allowing those engaging in legal and appropriate short-term rentals to do so and to their lives while cracking down on the short-term rentals that are violating the law. this summer, we passed legislation as you will recall creating the office of short-term rentals, we also significantly increasing the
important resources providing to that office so they can enforce the laws. we've seen what appears to be an increase in enforcement. in my district there are properties for violations of the law were occurring and city staff stepped in and enforced an imposed significant fines. it is important for the public to have confidence that enforcement is happening. a lot of times there is skepticism in san francisco in various aspects of city government. when it comes to short-term rentals given importance of this issue to a lot of people on all sides of this issue. the public needs to know what level of enforcement is happening and needs to know that people are being held accountable when they violate the law. the hearing request an
oversight hearing to occur every 3 months and every time the short-term office for rentals will come and determine how much enforcement is happening, how to enforcement is happening, how many registrations are occurring in terms of short-term of rental properties and the properties imposed and what the trend are. colleagues, i look forward to this quarterly hearing to have full transparency on this important enforcement endeavor. i also have two very tragic in memoriam today for chris mitchell who passed away suddenly saturday november 21st. he resided in san francisco and employee of fitness sf, the gym. known for his amazing smile and wit. he was an invaluable colleague
and friend to all who knew him. a memory at the oasis december 11th where friends can celebrate his life and reflect. the second in memoriam, dennis nick, an avid diver and skier killed. he was part of the social fabric and participate negative local groups and often seen in the neighborhood. a dear friend to so many people. dennis was involved in many civic and social organizations in the bay area and nationwide. dennis reveled in his new york up bringing and styling his new york accent for all in san francisco. his death comes as a shock to his family and he will be missed.
i also want to acknowledge mayor lee that today is world aids day. to really reflect on the progress we've made in addressing this epidemic when we look at the number of new infection in san francisco last year, 302 which was lower than before and dramatically lower than 10-15 years ago. we have been collapsing infection rates in san francisco. we've also been reducing the number of san francisco who pass away from hiv. we have significantly expanding access to testing, access is to all prevention tools, and access to medication, quick access to medication for people who become hiv positive. we really do see a light at the end of the tunnel in terms of in the not so